Numbers of SAHMs increasing
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 10-12-2003 - 3:41pm |
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/12/stay_at_home_mothers_finding_theyre_not_alone/
Stay-at-home mothers finding they're not alone
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff, 10/12/2003
FRANKLIN -- It's morning on Greystone Road, and the routine looks like a flashback to a 1950s neighborhood: Fathers jump into their cars for a day's work, while their wives, holding babies and toddlers, wave goodbye. But on this block of $200,000 split-level and ranch homes, the women insist they are not modern-day housewives. All of them, they point out, graduated from college and worked for at least a decade before having their first child in their early 30s.
"We are our own generation," said Rebecca McLean, 32, a former personnel recruiter who stays home with her 6-month-old son, Derek. "We're doing it our way."
These residents of Greystone Road are part of a new shift in family life: More married couples with young children rely on their husband's income. After years of increases in the number of working mothers, census figures show the first significant rise in stay-at-home moms. In 1998, 41.3 percent of mothers with infants stayed home with their children; in 2000, the figure rose to 44.8 percent.
The trend is clear on Greystone Road. Stay-at-home mothers and full-time working fathers occupy four of six homes. Retirees own the other two.
Even though the women earned more than enough money to boost their families' total income and cover day-care costs, the parents on this block chose to cope with the financial pinch. For example, they sacrificed having a bigger house to be at home with their children.
The fathers, too, say they are far from being the Ward Cleavers of 2003 -- quick to change diapers and wash dishes, and equal partners with their wives in trying to offer the best life for their children.
"We all married when we were older," said Mark Collins, 41, He is an occupational safety manager who, with his wife, Christine, 34, have a toddler, Allison. "I lived in the North End for 13 years, eating out whenever I wanted. Now it's homebody time."
The increase in stay-at-home mothers is most pronounced among college graduates as well as white and Hispanic women. There also is a rise of stay-at-home mothers for older children. Last year, 10.6 million children under 15 in two-parent homes were raised by stay-at-home mothers, up 13 percent in slightly less than a decade, census figures show.
Researchers have identified Generation Xers, now loosely defined as those in their 20s and 30s, as leading the way in taking on this more frugal -- and, they hope, less frazzled -- lifestyle. If they cannot afford to rely on one income, or both parents choose to work, many are demanding flexible work schedules or limited hours to help meet their children's needs.
Today's new mothers feel less need to wave the banner of feminism, and "staying at home is more culturally acceptable," said Stacia Ragolia, a vice president at iVillage.com, a popular website for women.
"If they work, it may be that they have something to prove to themselves, but it's not about proving something about women's role in society," said Michelle Poris, a director at Yankelovich, a national marketing research firm, who has tracked differences between Generation X and baby-boomer parents.
In addition, while some Generation X parents may leave the work force because of the nation's poor economy, many others arrive at this decision because "they're nostalgic for something they never had" in their own upbringing, Poris said.
This generation, they say, grew up with peak divorce rates, high maternal employment, and expanding day care, and are well-versed in the crushing body of literature about the pros and cons of each trend.
The Greystone Road parents also are part of a generation that has put in many years of full-time work and had a long time to think about how to raise their children. The average American woman now has her first child at age 25, compared with age 21 in 1970. In Massachusetts, the average age a woman has her first child is 28.
After watching her divorced mother raise eight children by herself, one stay-at-home mother on Greystone Road said she was determined to carve out a different life for her two young daughters. "I wanted to make sure I had a good marriage and found someone who had the same values as I did," said Julie, 39, who asked that her last name not be used.
New approaches toward family life are starting to influence the way companies peddle products. Increasingly, companies are introducing distinct advertising campaigns aimed at Generation X parents, instead of offering what one marketer called "warmed-over boomer campaigns." In launching its new 2004 Nissan Quest minivan, company officials began ads with the slogan, "Moms have changed." In these commercials, women drivers are depicted without children, using the minivan's storage space for their own guitars, surfboards, or horse saddles.
The ads don't differentiate between working or stay-at-home mothers, but are designed to get away from the "soccer mom" stereotype often associated with baby-boomer women.
"We are speaking to the woman behind the mom," said Kim McCullough, Nissan's senior manager for marketing.
Companies throughout the country are waking up to the distinctive attitudes held by Generation X parents, from how they juggle work and family to how they spend vacation money, said James Chung, who operates Reach Advisors in Boston, a youth-oriented market-research business. This past week, Chung, 37 and a father of two, started a national survey of his own generation's attitudes toward family life and children.
He has speculated that the recent shutdown of the women's professional soccer league can be blamed, in part, on marketers' failing to recognize that today's parents need fresh promotional campaigns, not ones in which they are lumped with all the other "soccer moms."
Along Greystone Road in Franklin, residents said they don't see themselves as trying to make any collective statement. They had never met until they each moved, one by one, onto this small residential street.
In fact, when Christine Collins first moved into the neighborhood in 2000, the 31-year-old teacher worried she would be lonely when she would finally stay home after her first child was born. There was no one in the neighborhood in her age group.
But by the spring of 2001, the McLeans and then the Cunninghams -- married couples in their 30s with no children -- had moved in. Within the last three years, each couple had a child, and Christine Cunningham is expecting a second. During this time, another couple, who had two toddler girls, moved in.
In their morning chats in the yard these days, the mothers occasionally talk politics, though mostly they talk about who slept through the night and other family topics. The husbands also have gotten to know each other. Scott McLean, 35, a controller at a Boston advertising company, is getting home renovation tips from contractor Colin Cunningham, his 32-year-old neighbor.
Each couple says they expect they may someday want two incomes to help support the cost of a larger home and more vacations, as well as their children's college educations. The women hope their decision to stop work doesn't set them too far back in their professions.
For now, however, they save money watching for store sales, and sometimes going to secondhand children's clothing stores. They see their division of labor -- mom staying home, dad going to work -- as the right decision.
"For this generation, it's a choice," said Jill Cunningham, 33, a former executive assistant who lives in her two-bedroom ranch with her husband, Colin, and their 22-month-old son, Luke. "My husband and I are both conscious of that. He doesn't come back at the end of the day, stick his feet on the couch, and expect dinner."
Patricia Wen can be reached at wen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Pages
That's simply someone else's life choice. I feel the most important thing I can do right now is devote time to my children -- especially at their tender ages when I can have a great deal of influence. Because how I raise my children is the most important responsibility I have while on this planet, I feel that being a full-time SAHM is no sacrifice. I also feel it's the best use of my time at the moment. For example, I have only one opportunity to prepare them for entry into school.
And luckily for me....my "major want" is to be the best mom I can be.
Of course, since I did spend alot of time on my career before having kids, I don't feel I'm missing out on anything. As the years have gone by, it's become clearer to me that I am so much more than the degrees next to my name or the list of positions on my resume. And everyone can be replaced in the workplace...there's nothing sacred about it.
I think I've given my position on what is best for me and my family at the moment. However, if you want my opinion in a broader sense it is this: I do believe that it's best for infants/toddlers/preschoolers to have a full-time parent at home, if at all possible. Once the children are in school all-day (and have been well prepared and feel secure), then certainly a work-at-home arrangement or a work-outside-the-home job or volunteer positions during school hours is not only doable, but probably desirable for most people.
You chose not to do so,, but have similarly refused to explain how any of what you HAVE said has to do with being a perfectionist.
I have been civil in every SINGLE post I've ever written to you. I've never name called. I've never made nasty insinuations about you. I have asked questions. I have misunderstood and asked new questions.
In response you've called me names (rude, obnoxious, antagonistic) without ever giving any real reason behind it. I have permitted the matter to drop and continued to ask about perfectionism and how it relates to your dislike of teamwork.
YOU were the one who claimed you were never going to respond to me again. And then did so. Claimed it AGAIN. And then responded to me. So sorry for you, but I no longer believe you MEAN you won't respond to me, since you clearly won't STOP responding to me. Hence I feel confident in replying to you, even immediately in response to a post of yours claiming otherwise. why? Because experience has proven you AREN'T through responding to me, if only to make erroneous and nasty insinuations about my character.
Again. I don't understand how being a perfectionist has anything to do with liking or disliking teamwork. You said, "I'm too much of a perfectionist to...." and I'd like to know what one has to do with the other.
answer or don't answer, but I would very much appreciate it if you would cease your nasty accusations. I have never treated you in that way and would appreciate similar respect from you. If you don't WANT to explain it, no one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to reply to my posts; simply STOP replying to my posts....as in...don't WRITE another post to me if that's what you dont' want to do. And the thread will stop here. But if you're going to respond to me, I'm going to presume you do so because you WANT to and not because armed gunmen have stormed your home and forced you against your will to participate in a debate board with me.
And now that I have done you the courtesy of responding to your question, a mere one post after you asked it, in a polite manner, I would very much appreciate the same courtesy in return. And without the character assasination, thank you.
I simply rephrased it into non-paid-employment terms and argued the same could be said for SAHMs. If I made a mistake in assuming that your original question to P&J was not intended with derision, than I do apologize because it certainly reads that way, particularly given how you dismiss her personal need for time to herself as solvable by counting all her employed time as if it were a selfish indulgence that she has no right to consider as anything more. My post was written "in kind" to that impression. Again, if that was in error, I apologize.
Post 597 was also not a question, but an observation that the poster to whom you were responding was not the only one making unsupportable leaps into conclusions about others; and it was a direct reflection of the scenario already described above wrt 432.
And I might add, neither of those posts was assassinated your character, which you have done to me on far more than 2 occasions, including this latest time.
Yet again, I have indulged YOUR requests for information from me, immediately upon request. and you ahve STILL refused to answer how perfectionism is indicated by an unwillingness to engage in teamwork.
since you have now demonstrated, with an overwhelming amount of evidence that YOUR intent is to behave rudely, obnoxiously and maliciously (by maligning my character on numerous occasions), and refusing to answer the question I have asked you, now more than 4 times, I am ending this thread. I will no longer respond to you...and the difference is, I actually WON'T.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I devote time to my children too and believe me, DH and I do have a great deal of influence. That's not dependent on work status.
"Because how I raise my children is the most important responsibility I have while on this planet, I feel that being a full-time SAHM is no sacrifice."
This is true for me too. How I raise my children. To be independent of mommy and daddy at times. To enjoy being with other non parental adults. To raise them with every educational and financial advantage we deem appropriate. And I don't have to be a full time SAHM to do all that. I just do not see how WOH is inconsistent with fully accepting that important responsibility.
"I also feel it's the best use of my time at the moment. For example, I have only one opportunity to prepare them for entry into school." I don't understand this. Do you mean emotionally, socially or academically prepared? One of the important preparations we are undertaking is enrolling them in preschool. Academically, my children are certainly prepared.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages